Foreman v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER, Amended complaint alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction to be filed by 2/16/2012. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/27/12. (smp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DENNIS FOREMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
vs.
)
)
DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DePUY )
INC, DePUY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED;)
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & )
JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.; and
)
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
)
INTERNATIONAL;
)
)
Defendants
)

CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-50-RLM-CAN

OPINION and ORDER
The defense has not yet raised a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over
this matter, but the court has the obligation to inquire into its own subject matter
jurisdiction. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2007). The
plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege the existence of jurisdiction. It alleges that
“Plaintiff Dennis Formean is, and at all times relevant to the Complaint was, a
resident of Chesapeake, Virginia.” Residency is not citizenship, Held v. Held, 137
F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998), and jurisdiction depends on citizenship of each
party at the time the case begins. Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214, 216 (7th
Cir. 1996). The plaintiffs must show the citizenship of each party as of the date
the complaint was filed. Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993).

Although the case might be subject to dismissal on these grounds, Thomas
v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d at 534, the court instead affords the plaintiffs
twenty days from the date of this order within which to file an amended complaint
alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:

January 27, 2012

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

2